The background description includes information that may be useful in understanding the present invention. It is not an admission that any of the information provided herein is prior art or relevant to the presently claimed invention, or that any publication specifically or implicitly referenced is prior art.
Birds sometimes cause harm to humans, gardens, patios, golf courses, warehouses, loading docks, poles, wires, trees, buildings, and various other animals and structures. Various devices exist that attempt to deter or repel certain insects or pests using ultrasonic sound waves, but existing devices suffer various limitations.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,570,494 to Leftridge, Sr. discloses a mosquito guard that can be hung or mounted outdoors. U.S. Pat. No. 7,227,452 to Frost discloses an animal deterring device that emits ultrasound. U.S. Pat. No. 5,966,075 to Blanks discloses a motion-sensitive bird repelling device that makes noise when prompted by motion detectors. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0113754 to Husseiny discloses an avian denial infrasound system that broadcasts continuous infrasonic signals to create a bird-free infrasound active zone. Similarly, Great Britain Patent Application No. 2,161,974 to Jones (filed Jul. 18, 1984) and U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0286956 to Lee (filed Dec. 30, 2010), describe devices that utilize naturally occurring sounds, such as those made by predators, to deter birds and other pests from designated areas. U.S. Pat. No. 7,324,409 to Zweesaardt (filed Sep. 21, 2006) describes a system that utilizes a sonic device that emits distress calls and a visual deterrent, both of which are fixed to a trailer-mounted mast—the trailer allowing the system to be towed using a vehicle.
These and all other extrinsic references herein are incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each individual publication or patent application were specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference. Where a definition or use of a term in an incorporated reference is inconsistent or contrary to the definition of that term provided herein, the definition of that term provided herein applies and the definition of that term in the reference does not apply.
The devices and methods mentioned above have limitations that reduce their efficacy in repelling birds. For example, Erickson, Marsh, and Salmon (“High Frequency Sound Devices Lack Efficacy in Repelling Birds”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference 1992, Mar. 1, 1992, pp. 103-104) note that ultrasonic frequencies have little to no impact on avian pests. Martin (“Effective Use of Sound to Repel Birds from Industrial Waste Ponds”, Bird Control Seminars Proceedings, Nov. 11, 1979, pp. 71-76) found that natural sounds, such as distress and predator sounds, are more effective than simple loud or shock noises at deterring birds. Unfortunately, it was also determined that birds quickly became habituated to the presence of devices utilizing such sounds and returned to protected areas protected after a brief period.
Thus, there is still a need for improved bird deterrents, including especially versatility in operation.